Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-23 PACKET 06.3.STAFF REPORT CASE: V14-: 014 ITEM: 6.3 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 6123/14 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 7116/14 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Chad Norton REQUEST: A variance to allow a lean -to addition to an existing shed to be 3.5 feet from the rear property line when the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDED LAND USE: 8884 Greenway Avenue South R -3, Single Family Residential Low Density Residential LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT GUIDED NORTH: Residential Residential EAST: Residential Residential SOUTH: Residential Residential WEST: Residential Residential SIZE: N/A DENSITY: NIA RECOMMENDATION Based on testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation of either approval or denial. Cottage COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION J Grove er Pdde and P�asPe�IIY Meet Planning Staff Contact: John McCool, Senior Planner, 651- 458 -2874, Imccool(o)cottage- g rove. org Application Accepted:_ 5/27/14 60 -Day Review Deadline: 7/26/14 City of Cottage Grove Planning Division •.12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Planning Staff Report Chad and Guadalupe Norton Variance Requests Planning Case No. V2014 -014 June 23, 2014 Proposal Chad and Guadalupe Norton, 8884 Greenway Avenue, are requesting a variance to reduce the 10 -foot minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure to 3.5 feet from the rear lot line (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C)) and to allow an existing accessory structure to encroach on an existing ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(E)). A location map for the Norton's property is shown below. Location Map Review Process Application Received: May 27, 2014 Acceptance of Completed Application: May 27, 2014 Tentative City Council Date: July 16, 2014 60 -Day Review Deadline: July 26, 2014 Ordinance Requirements The existing accessory structure is non - compliant with two City ordinance regulations. The first regulation is the ten -foot minimum rear yard setback (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C )) and the Planning Staff Report — Case No. 2014 -014 June 23, 2014 Page 2 of 6 second is the prohibition of any structure to encroach on or over any easement of record (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(E)). The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provi- sion of this title, if they find that: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Planning Considerations Property Characteristics The Norton's property has an 86 -foot averaged lot width and a 127.96 -foot averaged lot depth for an 11,004 square foot lot area. The 10 -foot by 14 -foot accessory structure and its 6 -foot by 12 -foot addition is located 42 inches from the rear property line. An aerial photo of their prop- erty is shown below. 2013 Aerial Photo The 10 -foot by 14 -foot accessory structure was constructed in 1990. The applicant explained that the 6 -foot by 12 -foot addition existed on the west side of the main accessory structure Planning Staff Report — Case No. 2014 -014 June 23, 2014 Page 3 of 6 when they purchased the property in 2006. The applicant admitted to making structural im- provements to the addition to improve its appearance and mitigate rainwater washouts. City building permit records for this property do not include any information relative to this accessory structure. The rear yard setback for this accessory structure is found to be approximately 42 inches from the rear lot line. The photo below shows the area between the shed and rear property line. Drainage and Utility Easement This property is within the Thompson Grove 4th Addition. This subdivision plat was recorded in 1958, and houses in this area were generally constructed in 1958 -1959. At the time of platting this subdivision, the plat included a drainage and utility easement ten feet in width. This is common along the rear property boundary lines for each lot. An excerpt from the Thompson Grove 4th plat showing drainage and utility easements on residential lots abutting the Norton's property is shown below. Planning Staff Report —Case No. 2014 -014 June 23, 2014 Page 4 of 6 10 r IFj ,5 % � t , t7 Q G 11, lfl.i5 Q /s /7 $ /o � 'SL77 i 145. 8 Ac 1 (� Utilities All the public utilities exist and provide adequate service to this property and all other residential properties in this neighborhood. An overhead utility line exists along the rear property line. The drainage swale along the rear property line exists and conveys storm water during heavy rain- falls. No public utility needs to be relocated or modified to accommodate the applicant's requested variances. If a variance is granted for the shed to remain at its current location, a condition of approval will require the property owners to move the shed in the event it prevents or limits full use of the utility and drainage easement. Public Hearing Notices Public hearing notices were mailed to 101 property owners who are within 500 feet of the appli- cant's property. These notices were mailed on June 11; 2014. The public hearing notice was also published in the June 11, 2014, edition of the South Washington County Bulletin. City Department Review Representatives from various City Departments reviewed the Norton's variance request. Their comments generally did not condone allowing structures in easements, and they were unaware of any drainage issues that might exist in this vicinity. If the structure is allowed to remain, they recommended that a condition be included in the resolution granting the variance that the City is not liable for any potential damage that storm water drainage may cause to the structure and that the property owners agree to remove that portion of the structure encroaching on the easement if it is determined that the structure's existence inhibits necessary access to utilities. No comments or recommendations were received from any advisory commissions. Conclusion There are two options available to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. The following options were prepared for your consideration: Planning Staff Report— Case No. 2014 -014 June 23, 2014 Page 5 of 6 Recommendation for Denial. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of a variance to City Code regulations requiring a 10 -foot minimum rear yard setback for the 10 -foot by 14 -foot accessory structure and its 6 -foot by 12 -foot addition (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C) and its encroachment on a ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the property's rear lot line (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(E)). If the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of this ten -foot minimum rear yard setback for the accessory structure and encroachment on the ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement, the following findings of facts may be considered: A. The property currently has a reasonable use and there are no practical difficulties that support the applicant's request. B. The structure's encroachment on the drainage and utility easement might limit or restrict accessibility within the drainage and utility easement for future maintenance, construc- tion, repair, and /or access to existing or future public and /or private utility services. C. The existing structure must be moved off the existing drainage and utility easement. The property owner is required to contact the Building Inspections Division once the structure has been relocated to inspect the relocated structure and verify that the minimum set- back requirements are complied with. D. The structure may potentially be damaged if storm water drainage within the ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement is encumbered by the structure. E. The variance request does not meet ordinance requirements, variance'criteria, and is inconsistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations. F. There are no unique circumstances to the property, and the misplaced accessory struc- ture was created by the previous landowner and recently modified by the current property owner. G. The conditions upon which the variances are requested are not unique to just this parcel of land and could generally be sought by other properties within the same zoning classi- fication. H. The drainage and utility easement existed before the applicant purchased the property. X2 Recommendation for Approval. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a variance to allow the existing 10 -foot by 14 -foot accessory structure and its 6 -foot by 12 -foot addition to remain at its current location on property described as 8884 Greenway Avenue. Granting a variance allowing the existing accessory structure to be 42 inches from the rear property boundary line and encroach 6.5 feet on the existing 10 -foot wide drainage and utility easement is based on the following findings of fact: A. The existing structure has existed at this location since August 1990 and apparently has not caused any surface storm water drainage problems for abutting properties. Planning Staff Report — Case No. 2014 -014 June 23, 2014 Page 6 of 6 B. The variances do not adversely impact development goals and policies documented in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. C. The requested setback and easement encroachment variances continue a reasonable use on the property. Granting a variance to allow the existing 10 400t by 14 -foot accessory structure and its 6 -foot by 12 -foot addition at 8884 Greenway Avenue to remain at its current location and encroach on a drainage and utility easement is subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner agrees to relocate the accessory structure if it is determined that its existence on the drainage and utility easement prevents or limits full use of the utility and drainage easement. 2. The property owner agrees to hold the City harmless of any damages the non - compliant structure may sustain from storm water drainage and /or any future construction, mainte- nance, repair, or installation of public or private utility services necessary within the dedicated easement. 3. Constructing an addition or modifying the existing non - conforming accessory structure must not increase the amount of encroachment on the drainage and utility easement. General maintenance (e.g. painting, re- siding and re- roofing) is permitted. 4. If the non - conforming accessory structure is removed from the site, all future accessory structures must conform to all development standards required by City Code regulations. Recommendation Based on testimony and discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Com- mission can modify any of the draft recommendations, finding of facts, and /or conditions of ap- proval. It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a recommendation concerning the Norton's request to permit the existing structure encroachment to remain on their property. Prepared by: John McCool, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Applicant's Letter dated May 27, 2014 a,. I� J31 �S ggsy Ltz�z,�tm•1'�(1,L��' May 27, 2014 For Consideration To The City of Cottage Grove Request for Variance I, Chad N Norton at 8884 Greenway Ave South C.G., MN am requesting variance for exterior storage shed back lot -line offset. As shown in the attached drawing the finished lean -to shed is closer to the back lot -line than what would normally be accepted. When the home was purchased by us in 2006 the primary shed had a partially attached secondary shed (off the rear) that was unsightly and poorly constructed. I have since made the necessary improvements for structural integrity and aesthetics. The lean -to shed now has proper framing, fully shingled roof (matching) and full seamless gutters. The improvements (roofline and gutters) have actually ended a continuing washout problem by controlling and diverting the roof water. Sincerely, Cha Norton City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission A variance to allow a existing lean -to 8884 Greenway Ave S A variance to allow a 8X16 accessory structure, at 8900 Greenway Ave S I feel if the City of Cottage Grove has a 10 foot drainage and utility easement on both properties, no structure should be on the easement if the structure would hamper the drainage or utility easement. if the owners at 8884 and 8900 did not get a building permit the variance should not be given. The variance should be given before any building. (Not after) If building permits were given to property owners, and no follow up/ sign off, this is a problem with the City of Cottage Grove, as it has been years on each property. 8905 Greenway Ave S E V ® 1 9 201 OTTAGE GROVE